Skip to main content

Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using TV News Archive service.

Speakers

Carol Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
KRCB 08/16/2013
Warner: now, equally startling was your companion piece, what the district court judge, Reggie Walton, said to you about the FISA court's authority when you asked him about this. Explain that a little more. Leonnig: so he's the chief judge of the secret spy court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court, that is supposed to be the lynchpin for the checks and balances on our government spying programs. It takes it really seriously. It does everything in a classified, secret
Carol Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
KRCB 08/16/2013
Leonnig continued: busy dockets themselves -- Reggie Walton has a very busy docket himself-- and they have a very busy staff of 5 lawyers. Warner: For the whole court? Leonnig Yes, So those lawyers receive the information about the compliance allegations, they review them, they elevate the most serious ones to a judge, if it warrants it and that's a very practical reason why it would be impossible to be policing and looking behind the government when they report thousands of violations.
Carol Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
KRCB 08/16/2013
Leonnig: Congress has a lot more in the way of staff for reviewing. Do we know the degree which they look over it? We don't. I did find it interesting last night when we asked Senator Feinstein for her comment, ands you know, Senator Feinstein has been a pretty arch supporter-- Warner: a member of the Intelligence Committee. Leonnig: exactly, and a very strong ally for the government and NSA in supporting these efforts. She said that she feels the subsector, subsection of violation that she doesn't have authority over, she should now, perhaps, gain authority to review some of those that have to do with foreign communications
Margaret Warner
Senior Correspondent, PBS News Hour
KQED 08/21/2013
Warner: the nation's top intelligence official today declassified documents showing that for three years, the national security agency, or NSA, collected more than 50,000 emails a year between Americans with no connection to foreign intelligence terrorism. The foreign intelligence surveillance court in 2011 ruled the collection methods unconstitutional. Today's documents show changes the NSA made so the program-- designed to target foreign intelligence-- could continue.
Mike Rogers
Representative (R-Mich.), Chair, House Select Committee on Intelligence
KQED 12/12/2013
Warner: The PEN writers group did a survey of 250 professional writers, it just came out this week, and a quarter of these writers said they feel inhibited. They’re censoring themselves in what they discuss in e-mail in the research they do especially if it involves anything overseas. Does that, as someone who’s always believed in individual liberties, does that concern you? Rogers: The attitude certainly does. And you know, that's mortifying to me that they would feel that that would be an issue that the government would be interested in, candidly. Even their engaged into some issue that may be even questionable, if it's a political issue and you are expressing yourself, you need to feel comfortable that you can do that in the United States. We should never lose that.
Mike Rogers
Representative (R-Mich.), Chair, House Select Committee on Intelligence
KQED 12/12/2013
Warner: some members of Congress at least on the senate side feel that they've been mislead about by the head of the NSA, by the Director of National Intelligence about how much data is being collected on America, metadata, whatever you want to call it. Do you feel that there's been any either misleading, willful or otherwise about the extent of that? Rogers: I know as the chairman of the house intelligence committee, we have had this information. We have been briefed on it. We've had an opportunity to ask questions on it. I supported these programs. We had some differences. We worked them out. Were there problems that we found? Yes. But we work with them in the appropriate channels, classified channels to fix them. Like you would expect us to do as member of the oversight committee. But at the end of the day I supported them when nobody knew about them. And I support them now.
Ron Wyden
U.S. Senator (D-Oregon), Member of Select Committee on Intelligence
KQED 12/13/2013
Warner: Do you even know how many Americans are being swept up, have been swept up in this NSA surveillance that is actually targeted on overseas terror threats? Wyden: Suffice it to say, we have asked this question, in classified sessions, in public sessions. And largely have been stonewalled. Now of course from the information that has been declassified, you know, recently, indicates that thousands of Americans have had information, you know, collected on them. And that really leads to the central privacy question. The advocates of the bulk collection of all these on law abiding Americans say this is not surveillance. They're saying it is data collection. And they're saying we're not listening in. And for that reason it's not surveillance.
Ron Wyden
U.S. Senator (D-Oregon), Member of Select Committee on Intelligence
KQED 12/13/2013
Wyden: I want it understood for your viewers that when the government knows who you called, when you called and for how long you called, you're getting alot of private information about individuals. For example, if the government knows that you called a psychiatrist three times in 24 hours once after midnight, they know a lot about you.
Ron Wyden
U.S. Senator (D-Oregon), Member of Select Committee on Intelligence
KQED 12/13/2013
Wyden: The argument that we're not going to abuse them because we have a bunch of our own little internal, you know, rules, that's not in sync with the constitution. The fourth amendment doesn't say you can invade people's privacy but it's really kind of okay if the government then sets up some sort of general rules to make it okay. The fourth amendment in effect says you've got to have reasonable grounds to believe somebody is involved with terrorist activity, nefarious activity, in order to get this information. All along people like me were told look, you're raising all these concerns but the reality is the FISA court is going to make sure that everything is okay. What we've learned in the last few weeks is the FISA court repeatedly said things were not okay. In effect saying that they were lied to repeatedly to the point where they couldn't see how there was much of a system of rules at all.
Ron Wyden
U.S. Senator (D-Oregon), Member of Select Committee on Intelligence
KQED 12/13/2013
Warner: In this post 9/11 world, however is there any reluctance on the part of lawmakers to second-guess the intelligence professionals? Given that the cost of being wrong is so high. Wyden: The government has emergency authorities that basically say when there's a threat they can go get the information, get the warrant later. Of course protecting the safety of the public has to always come first. And I don’t take a backseat to anybody in terms of that.
Showing 1 through 10 of 16
Page 1 2